From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Date: | 2011-12-02 15:05:15 |
Message-ID: | 16633.1322838315@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On ons, 2011-11-30 at 10:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the important point here is that we need to support more than
>> one level of validation, and that the higher levels can't really be
>> applied by default in CREATE FUNCTION because they may fail on perfectly
>> valid code.
> How would this work with anything other than PL/pgSQL in practice?
Well, that's TBD by the individual PL authors, but it hardly seems
implausible that there might be lint-like checks applicable in many
PLs. As long as we have the functionality pushed out to a PL-specific
checker function, the details can be worked out later.
> So what I'd like to have is some way to say
> check all plpythonu functions [in this schema or whatever] using
> checker "pylint"
> where "pylint" was previously defined as a checker associated with the
> plpythonu language that actually invokes some user-defined function.
That sounds like a language-specific option to me.
> Also, what kind of report does this generate?
Good question. I suspect what Pavel has now will raise errors, but that
doesn't scale very nicely to checking more than one function, or even to
finding more than one bug in a single function.
My first instinct is to say that it should work like plain EXPLAIN, ie,
deliver a textual report that we send as if it were a query result.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-02 15:11:19 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
Previous Message | karavelov | 2011-12-02 14:23:32 | Re: Why so few built-in range types? |